Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

August, 2014:

Waste Incinerator in Atsugi, Japan (US Naval Base/Japanese Company)

Waste Incinerator in Atsugi, Japan

Smoke pouring out of a smokestack

From 1985 to 2001, personnel at Naval Air Facility (NAF) Atsugi in Atsugi, Japan may have been exposed to environmental contaminants from off-base waste incinerators. The Shinkampo Incinerator Complex (SIC) was a combustion waste disposal equipped with incinerators that burned up to 90 tons of industrial and medical waste daily. Emissions included chemicals and other particulate matter.

A private Japanese company owned and operated the business. The U.S. Navy found a potential for increased health risks and worked with the Japanese government to close the SIC. The incinerator was shut down in May 2001.

If you are concerned about exposures at Atsugi, talk to your health care provider or local VA Environmental Health Coordinator.

Health effects from pollution at Atsugi

Short-term health effects could include irritation to the eyes, nose and throat, skin rashes, and sinus problems. These conditions usually went away after the exposure ended. Long-term health effects could include a possible increase in the lifetime risk for cancer.

Since the 1990s, the Navy has informed sailors and their families about the possible long-term health effects of living at Atsugi. Visit the Navy and Marine Corps Public Health Center website for health information about air quality monitoring and soil testing at Atsugi.

Currently there is no definitive scientific evidence to show that living at NAF Atsugi while the incinerator operated caused additional risk for disease.

Health concerns?

If you are concerned about exposure to environmental contaminants during service at NAF Atsugi, talk to your health care provider or local VA Environmental Health Coordinator.

VA offers a variety of health care benefits to eligible Veterans. Not enrolled in the VA health care system? Find out if you qualify for VA health care.

Compensation benefits for health problems

Veterans may file a claim for disability compensation for health problems they believe are related to exposure to environmental contaminants during service at NAF Atsugi. VA decides these claims on a case-by-case basis. 

http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/sand-dust-particulates/atsugi.asp

Third runway’s sky-high emissions

ENVIRONMENT

Cheung Chi-fai chifai.cheung@scmp.com

Airport study says carbon footprint could hit 269 million tonnes, higher than Greenpeace’s figure. But it says cost to society is much lower

Having a third airport runway will increase carbon emissions by up to 269 million tonnes in 50 years and this will come at a cost of about HK$50 billion, a study has found.

The emissions estimate from the study, commissioned by the Airport Authority, is higher than Friends of the Earth’s estimate in November that the runway would cause up to 216 million tonnes of extra emissions in 50 years. But the estimated cost is far below Friends of the Earth’s figure of between HK$200 billion and HK$630 billion.

Activists have accused the authority of turning a blind eye to the snowballing level of carbon emissions and asked if the social and environmental costs were worth paying.

The authority commissioned environmental consultancy ERM to conduct the carbon-cost study for the third runway last year.

According to the results released yesterday, the airport’s carbon emissions will peak at 27 million tonnes by 2031 – 62 per cent higher than its 2011 level.

The extra carbon that the third runway will generate ranges from 36 million to 269 million tonnes for the 50 years until 2061, depending on the method of calculation used.

One method – which gives a lower estimate – is to count emissions from planes taking off, landing and cruising within the city’s boundaries. Another, which gives a higher figure, takes into account all the carbon emitted during the entirety of a flight that takes off or lands in the city.

The study’s estimate of the cost of the emissions also depends on which method of calculation is used.

Friends of the Earth adopted pricing based on how much it would cost to keep global temperatures from rising beyond a relatively safe limit.

But the authority’s study calculated the social cost of carbon based on the damage that would be caused by climate change. At about HK$271 per tonne, the carbon cost of having a third runway would range from HK$7 billion to HK$50 billion.

Wilson Fung Wing-yip, the authority’s corporate development executive director, said this cost was small compared with the HK$480 billion of economic benefits the runway would bring.

But Greenpeace campaigner Argo Yeung Man-yau said the latest study confirmed that a third runway would bring “high carbon but low economic benefits”.

Yeung said carbon intensity – the amount of carbon emissions for every dollar of gross domestic product – for the runway could be as high as 0.56kg, which is 25 times the entire city’s carbon intensity in 2011. “We are clearly heading away from building a green economy,” he said.

Friends of the Earth’s Melonie Chau Yuet-cheung said the authority had failed to offer any effective solution to minimise the airport’s carbon footprint.

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1568554/third-runways-sky-high-emissions

Standard: ‘Wishful thinking’ on dolphins slammed

The Airport Authority announced four extra measures to help conserve Chinese white dolphins after work on the proposed third runway is complete.

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

The Airport Authority announced four extra measures to help conserve Chinese white dolphins after work on the proposed third runway is complete.

That came in a meeting with an Environmental Protection Department subcommittee, which criticized the authority for “wishful thinking” that dolphins fleeing their Lantau habitat will return.

Authority general manager Peter Lee Chung-tang said traffic volume at SkyPier would be capped at 99 ferry trips per day, originally predicted to rise to 115 in 2021 and 130 in 2030.

And to be funded is a marine ecology conservation management plan for the dolphins in south Lantau waters.

Night studies will be carried out on dolphin activity and funding provided for a conservation strategy in the Pearl River Estuary. The authority submitted its environmental impact assessment report to the related subcommittee under the EPD’s Advisory Council on the Environment at the meeting, which continues tomorrow and Monday.

Dolphin specialists Thomas Jefferson and Bernd Wursig, advisers to the authority on the report, said dolphins are smart and it is believed they will return after work on the third runway is over.

But subcommittee vice chairman Hung Wing-tat, associate professor of civil and structural engineering at Polytechnic University, criticized the EIA report for lacking scientific evidence.

Hung said: “I swear it is wishful thinking. If there is a piece of scientific evidence, I will take back my words.” KENNETH LAU

SCMP: Incinerator will create toxic ash with poisonous emissions

Tuesday, 12 August, 2014, 5:16am

Comment› Letters

In his letter to supposedly correct “misunderstandings” by opponents of the planned Shek Kwu Chau incinerator (“Incinerator will adopt proven, cost-effective technology on island [1]”, August 5), Elvis W. K, Au, assistant director of environmental protection, added yet more disinformation on the project.

Au boasted that the facility will adopt proven technology, yet omitted to mention that this technology creates toxic ash along with poisonous emissions, with adverse health impacts described in peer-reviewed research.

Were the incinerator emissions clean, it could be sited beside the government’s Tamar offices, so officials like Au could admire it each day. Yet instead, it is to be beside a relatively remote island.

It seems laughable to claim this choice of location arises through trying to “achieve a more balanced distribution of waste facilities”. But then, Au and colleagues have made a host of absurd claims regarding the project.

For instance, the incinerator with its 150-metre chimney can somehow blend with the surroundings – in an area of outstanding natural beauty; the reclamation and operations will not adversely affect the globally endangered finless porpoise; and, the incinerator will even benefit local tourism.

To those of us living on Cheung Chau, this last claim is a joke. More serious is Au’s previous habit of wrongly claiming the incinerator can completely destroy organic pollutants, which reflects an inadequate understanding of the basic chemistry and health risks, and is disturbing coming from an official supposedly helping safeguard our environment.

Au even played fast and loose with financial information in striving to show the incinerator will be “cost effective”. In his letter, he cited a capital cost of about HK$12.7 billion, which may be the first time this figure has been published, as in March 2012 the anticipated cost was HK$14.96 billion.

Conveniently, too, Au omitted to mention that because the incinerator and its island will take perhaps eight years or more to build, landfills must be extended, at an additional cost of HK$12 billion – making the real incinerator project bill nearer to a hefty HK$27 billion, which will rise when costs soar, as they are wont to do for infrastructure schemes.

In rejecting plasma arc facilities as being small scale with limited performance tracks, Au further demonstrated his blinkered approach, ignoring the large-scale facilities being commissioned and built in the UK, and planned for several countries including China.

Dr Martin Williams, director, Hong Kong Outdoors

http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1571513/incinerator-will-create-toxic-ash-poisonous-emissions

Third runway at Chek Lap Kok would be ‘white elephant’

Monday, 11 August, 2014, 6:10am

Ernest Kao ernest.kao@scmp.com

A third runway at Chek Lap Kok airport will become another “white elephant”, groups opposed to the plan say.

Neither Terminal Two, built in 2007, nor the HK$1 billion North Satellite Concourse, have helped the airport increase efficiency or flight capacity, according to environmental group Green Sense and the Airport Development Concern Network.

The groups are making a last-ditch attempt to highlight the fallacies of building a third runway before the Advisory Council on the Environment begins the first of several meetings today to discuss results of a public inspection of an environmental report.

The fate of Hong Kong’s costliest infrastructure project hinges on how well the public accepts the results of the environmental assessment.

However, the groups are urging the committee to declare the environment report “no go” until it provides alternative solutions to the third runway.

“Terminal Two has no air bridges and only serves departures, not arrivals,” said network spokesman Michael Mo.

“Some of the commercial space has nothing to do with travel. The concourse, meanwhile, serves just 10 aircraft, can only be reached by bus and only serves narrow-bodied aircraft used by very few passengers,” he added.

He urged the airport to stop allowing so many narrow body jets flying to third and fourth tier cities to use up valuable airspace and timeslots.

An Airport Authority spokesman said carriers decided their own aircraft mix.

Lam Chiu-ying, now adjunct professor at the Chinese University’s department of geography and resources, said the airport operator had “bungled” management of the facility and had no justification to ask for a third runway.

Roy Tam Hoi-pong of Green Sense said: “If they can’t use the existing two runways at maximum operational efficiency then a third won’t change anything. It will just be another white elephant.”


Source URL (retrieved on Aug 12th 2014, 4:17pm): http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1570787/third-runway-chek-lap-kok-would-be-white-elephant-say-groups

Georgia Tech Research Institute Plasma Arc Gasification of Waste

http://co2now.org/Know-the-Changing-Climate/Climate-Changes/ipcc-faq-human-responsibility-co2-ghg-concentration-increases.html

http://www.energy.ca.gov/proceedings/2008-ALT-1/documents/2009-02-17_workshop/presentations/Louis_Circeo-Georgia_Tech_Research_Institute.pdf

MSW Incineration has the highest CO2 emissions per mwH of electricity produced

Plasma Arc treatment of MSW the most efficient process for electricity to grid vs Mass burn = WORST

Speaks for itself.

Two thirds of residual municipal waste in Germany incinerated in 2012

Germany’s local authorities managed two thirds of their residual municipal waste by sending it to incineration plants in 2012. The 66.6 per cent share is slightly lower than in the previous year, when incineration accounted for 67.7 per cent of residual municipal waste, according to an annual overview published by the German statistical office (Destatis) at the end of July.

Overall, waste management plants in Germany treated nearly 18 million tonnes of mixed residual municipal waste in 2012. This is around 0.4 million tonnes less than in the year 2011. The total does not include source-separated waste fractions such as paper and board, packaging waste and organic waste collected from households and similar sources.

8 Aug 2014

Denmark’s transition from incineration to Zero Waste

http://www.zerowasteeurope.eu/2014/01/the-story-of-denmarks-transition-from-incineration-to-zero-waste/

The truth is that the construction of the Amager Bakke incinerator has sparked lots of debate in the country. Danish citizens and politicians are more and more aware that they are recycling too little and burning too much, and that the incineration overcapacity of the country is not something to be proud of. For this reason, the ministry of environment led by Ms Ida Auken opposed the construction of this incinerator and in the end it was only because of the pressure from the finances minister, Mr Bjarne Corydon, that this project got the green light. If you wonder what does the minister of finance have to do with waste incineration it will help understand that he is elected in Esbjerg, the city where happens to be the headquarters of the company which will build the incinerator.

This conflict of interest that in southern Europe would be quickly associated with corruption did spark some public debate in Denmark but didn’t stop the process. Actually just after the decision to stop the incinerator was changed through secret negotiations the director of the supplier company wrote an article in the national business paper thanking the finance minister for good lobby work in the case of Amager incinerator. It has also been implied that the interest from Chinese companies to order a good number of burners from the Danish company has played a decisive role in rubberstamping this unnecessary and expensive infrastructure.”

Denmark is perceived to be one of the world’s greenest countries. But is it really? Besides the Danish windmills and bike lanes there is a not-so-well-hidden secret of this otherwise rather environmentally friendly country; their passion for burning garbage!

This burning passion has received widespread and often misleading coverage by international media such as the New York Times or the National Geographic who didn’t bother to dig too much into the details and instead succumbed to the charms of well-designed green washing.

Objective facts about Denmark are that is one of EU countries that generate more waste per capita, and is world leader in incineration of household waste, burning 80% of it. For comparison this means that after discounting recycling Denmark burns more waste than what is generated in countries such as Czech Republic, Estonia, Bulgaria or Poland. How green is that?

Contrary to best practices in the sector, in Denmark most household waste is not separately collected this means that recycling rates are as low as 22%. Most organic waste, which is 90% water, ends up in the oven.

More waste is good, less waste is bad

It might look like a contradiction but in Denmark the system is set up in a way that the worst thing you can do is reduce the size of your waste bin. Why? Well, every city in Denmark has its own incinerator and they are mostly publicly owned. This means that the citizens are actually the owners of the burners and hence if less waste is sent for burning -because it is being avoided, reused or recycled- the incinerator will function under full capacity, lowering the efficiency to generate heat and power. Yet the incinerator has to meet the capital and operating costs with less income which will result in an increase in the waste management fees. I.e. the more waste you generate, the better for your pocket.

With the current system of incentives in Denmark getting to Zero Waste would be a financial catastrophe. It is therefore unsurprising that the country that burns the most also generates more waste than any other. Denmark is the perfect example of the linkage between waste burning and waste generation.

But burning waste is good to heat and power the Danish homes!

This has been the mantra in Denmark and in some other northern-European countries. Scandinavian long dark cold winters of course justify higher intake of heat and power and this has been the main reason why generation of energy from waste has been pioneered in these countries. However waste burning in Denmark is a 19th century practice which is clearly unfit for the 21st. Not only because burning waste is extremely inefficient way to generate energy but rather because there are already other carbon neutral technologies that are put on stand-by for as long as the incineration capacity is in place.

In other words, incineration is one of the main obstacles in the path of Denmark towards becoming a carbon neutral country. Indeed, 20% of heat production and 5% of electricity in Denmark are generated from waste incineration but this heat and power could be replaced with a combination of geothermal, wind and biogas from separately collected bio waste, all mature and available technologies. Moreover, EU law dictates that as from 2020 all new buildings will need to be carbon neutral radically reducing the need for energy input. Last but not least, there is a clear overcapacity of installed power between the waste incineration and large combustion plants which causes that in the coldest months of the year the windmills are stopped despite the strong winds, only to give priority to the thermal installations due to the need of heat.

The case of incinerator with the ski slope. Why not building a sauna instead?

Have you heard of the latest Danish contribution to waste management? It is about merging garbage and sports by skiing on piles of garbage burning under immaculate synthetic white… and in order to remind skiers of the real purpose of the plant, each time a metric tonne of CO2 is released the smokestack will puff out a 30m wide ring into the sky. This is the project of the Amager Bakke incinerator, the jewel of the crown of Danish incineration.

As usual the too-good-to-be-true things are actually not that good at all. This half a million tonnes burner is the latest attempt to sell this technology to the world. As long as you keep people entertained talking about the ski slope they will not think about avoiding or recycling this waste instead. Why is it that Danish composting plants don’t try to use the heat generated in the organic decomposition of food waste to sell fancy saunas? Well, firstly because they don’t need this kind of marketing to operate and lastly because there aren’t many composting plants in a country where most organic waste is not recycled but burned.

The truth is that the construction of the Amager Bakke incinerator has sparked lots of debate in the country. Danish citizens and politicians are more and more aware that they are recycling too little and burning too much, and that the incineration overcapacity of the country is not something to be proud of. For this reason, the ministry of environment led by Ms Ida Auken opposed the construction of this incinerator and in the end it was only because of the pressure from the finances minister, Mr Bjarne Corydon, that this project got the green light. If you wonder what does the minister of finance have to do with waste incineration it will help understand that he is elected in Esbjerg, the city where happens to be the headquarters of the company which will build the incinerator.

This conflict of interest that in southern Europe would be quickly associated with corruption did spark some public debate in Denmark but didn’t stop the process. Actually just after the decision to stop the incinerator was changed through secret negotiations the director of the supplier company wrote an article in the national business paper thanking the finance minister for good lobby work in the case of Amager incinerator. It has also been implied that the interest from Chinese companies to order a good number of burners from the Danish company has played a decisive role in rubberstamping this unnecessary and expensive infrastructure.

Two more interesting facts are the uneasiness of the neighbours who will have to pay for this piece of design and above all the fact that for the moment no company is interested to run the famous ski slope. As explained, household waste incinerators in Denmark are publicly owned but this doesn’t apply to ski resorts. In other words, for the moment the ski slope doesn’t have an operator and the neighbours have said that one thing is to have to pay for the incinerator and another thing is shouldering the costs of running the ski slope. Stay tuned because the saga of the Amager Bakke is far from over.

Denmark is leaving behind the incineration age

Leaving behind these isolated desperate attempts to make incineration fashionable in order to sell the technology to Asia, the truth is that Denmark is planning to embark in a very challenging journey. The country aims at becoming independent from fossil fuel by 2050 and this will mean having to close down all polluting power plants by then, including of course the waste-to-energy incinerators.

This will not be an easy task because as already explained the link between waste and energy in Denmark is very strong. This has an impact on waste management, creating perverse incentives which are contrary to waste reduction, reuse and recycling and it also has an impact on energy policy, effectively blocking cleaner technologies from taking over. Moving away from incineration allows hitting two targets with one shot and the Danish ministry of Environment knows it.

This is why the new waste management plan that minister Auken presented in November 2013 is called ”Denmark without waste – Recycle More, Incinerate less”. In her own words: ”in Denmark we have been incinerating almost 80 % of our household waste. Even though this has made an important contribution to green energy production, materials and resources have been lost which could otherwise have been recycled. Now, we are going to change this.”

Some measures envisaged by the plan consist in replacing incineration with separately collected garden and food waste to produce biogas and compost, with the recycling of plastic and paper that are now being burned or to landfill toxic materials such as PVC instead of releasing them into the air through combustion. It also implies the privatisation in the ownership of the incinerators so those that are not profitable will have to close. All in all it aims at reducing the waste sent for burning in 820,000 tons by 2022.

It looks like the showcase for incineration in the world will be changing business. This will be good for the Danish recycling industry which might see a rebirth after having turned to ashes by decades of burning fever. It will also be good for the Danes for the decrease in incineration will reduce the pollution and associated health impacts and the increase of recycling will generate jobs and a more self-sustainable economy. And finally it will be good for the rest of the world which finally will be able to import good waste practices from Denmark.

This change of paradigm will not happen overnight but considering the determination and efficiency of the Danes once they set their minds into something it is to be expected that they will be as good in moving towards zero waste as they have been in championing incineration

Law needed to regulate funding of political parties

(Left to right) Labour Party legislator Lee Cheuk-yan, media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying and legislator Leung Kwok-hung.

(Left to right) Labour Party legislator Lee Cheuk-yan, media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying and legislator Leung Kwok-hung.

The controversy surrounding donations made to lawmakers is still raging as more evidence continues to surface. Labour Party legislator Lee Cheuk-yan, who insisted the donation made to him had been received on behalf of the party, revealed that the money had stayed in his personal bank account for nine months. It was only transferred to the party after the donations by pro-democracy media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying came to light. Separately, Leung Kwok-hung admitted that the donation to the League of Social Democrats was set aside to finance his legal bills and those of others. The disclosures have raised fresh queries about whether the donations constitute benefits for lawmakers and should, therefore, have been declared under Legislative Council rules.

Leung conceded that he had handled the donation poorly and apologised. As he rightly said, the public is entitled to know how the money is used, regardless of whether the leak to the media was aimed at undermining the pan-democrats’ fight for universal suffrage. Lee maintained that he had made no personal gain, but felt worried if questions over his integrity had dealt a blow to the democracy campaign. Whether the explanations can lay the controversy to rest remains unclear. But those involved should make every effort to clear the air. Legco should also determine if further investigation is needed.

Political figures are expected to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. It’s a shame that some lawmakers stressed the importance of being “whiter than white” when it comes to the conduct of officials, but failed to subject themselves to the same principle. The existing declaration rules cover individuals rather than parties. Unless tighter regulation is introduced, parties from across the political spectrum can continue to dodge disclosure of their sources of funding. The lack of transparency and accountability is inconsistent with the parties’ growing influence in public policies and affairs. The controversy underlines the need for a law to better regulate party funding as we move towards full democracy.
________________________________________
Source URL (retrieved on Aug 5th 2014, 7:19am): http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1566564/law-needed-regulate-funding-political-parties